What's wrong with suicide?
Posted on: May 24, 2007 - 7:07pm
Offline
What's wrong with suicide?
Where does the bible say suicide is wrong? You believe in Christ, you preach and lead a good life, and you die, whether it be martyring, accidental, natural causes or self infliction. It would seem the easiest way to get to Heaven as long as you've covered enough bases as a Christian and ask for forgiveness of your sins. Where does the Bible condemn suicide? I thought it was the Catholic church that came up with the idea of suicide as a sin worthy of being sent to Hell.
- Login to post comments
The topic was suicide. You are narrowing the focus to "suicide by lethal injection of morphine." Obviously, in that case, the person experiences some relief before dying. Why? Because they are still alive to experience the relief.
What about someone who blows his head off with a gun? Does he experience relief?
My point was never that anyone should be prevented from suicide if that is what they want to do. My arguments about the irrationality of suicide are not aimed at making this case because, ultimately, people can be irrational if they want to.
Just as long as we're clear on that.
Besdies, I think the point is still different. A person commiting suicide exercises and experiences his autonomy while he is alive and still has it. He doesn't experience any sort of relief at all, ever.
Please point to where I said or implied that. Come on, Gauche, you're getting all excited over nothing.
No. Relevance?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Heh, no, but it would be a good name for bounty hunter maybe! The handle comes from the fact that I used to live in a little town called Tilbury.
Majority desire has never needed to be normative in order to inform politics. The illegality of murder is a political problem, and thus an argument from civic order suffices.
As for the normative status of murder, there is no intuitive "leap" required. We can observe, as a matter of behavioural analysis, that mentally healthy humans have a powerfuly negative reaction to murder. We can connect that to rather obvious evolutionary factors in the development of our species as a social mammal. Therefore we can make the moral statement, from science, that it violates our human nature to murder. If you are human, murder is simply not normative, by nature.
We have to refer to human nature as well as pure logic when designing civic systems, and we can see that human empathy is offended by the killing of other people. So it makes sense to mitigate the amount of unnecessary killing that is done. Therefore, when we have a murderer in jail and no longer a threat to anyone, it actually makes more sense from a moral perspective to keep him alive.
Before you jump on empathy, let me point out that this is not a mysterious gift from Beyond. There are very easily understood reasons why we have evolved an empathetic response to the suffering of others, and other social animals share the same mechanism.
Only if you proceed from the assumption that a rational state would be governed by robots who are in turn governing robots. Love. empathy, mercy and compassion are all moral virtues that we share quite without the need for religion or any irrational belief in things for which we have no evidence. Plus, a broader view of society and social behaviour will show that these virtues are rational default positions for behaviour.
I think it is not controversial that we have moral intuitions. I don't see how they are necessary to help us make sense of anything, however. That is what reason is for.
Which is sufficient. We have a desire to live. It is a fact. If we want to say that we shouldn't have that desire, then we have to present a positive argument supporting that position. So far, I haven't heard any good arguments for why we should prefer death to life.
Sure, but I take issue with your use of the word "knowing" in relation to these feelings. We have emotions and they are real, but they don't impart knowledge of anything except themselves. We can use our emotions to inform our own behaviour all we want, but we can only use them to inform others to the extent that others also share the same emotions and intuitions. Knowledge arrived at through rationality is not so limited.
I don't think it is necessary to appeal to any circular concept in order to justify logic and science. Without logic we cannot reason, so, pragmatically, it is a useful tool. Without science we form invalid beliefs, so it is a useful tool as well. If we prefer to die rather than to exist, we are not here in the next moment to continue talking about it so our conversations are necessarily only with people who have not taken that position.
No, your first presumption must be to disregard the possibility that your senses are deceived and to accept the evidence of your senses and the principle of cause-and-effect. Otherwise you cannot even observe your own mind-state with any certainty. Logic only comes into play when you need to predict the outcomes of your own mind-state...it is contingent on evidence, not the other way around. If we found a square circle tomorrow we would all have to ditch our logical prohibition against such a thing.
This is why post-mortem consciousness and God fail as naturalistic concepts - they lack the first requirement: evidence. Sure, you can construct a logic ladder that is completely self-consistent that supports God, but you cannot connect that ladder to anything in the natural universe without evidence. Given that the foundations of reason are naturalistic in origin, I would contend that no such ladder can be called rational.
Join the club. I wish someone would pay me for all this work.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Honestly speaking, there is no verse in the Bible that says "if you commit suicide, then you shall burn in the flames of hell for all eternity!".
There is, however, the 6th of the ten commandments which simply states: "Thou shalt not murder." (please note that i didn't say "thou shalt not Kill". I did it on purpose, cuz in my opinion that is the more accurate word for it)
So if one is not allowed to murder other people, its quite natural to deduce that one is not allowed to murder one's self.
The logic behind this is that in my opinion (since not all theists agree on everything) our bodies and lives belong to God, and that we are mere stewards charged with taking good care of it until the time comes for Him to claim it. Killing ourselves then would be tantamount to destroying not only someone else's propoerty, but property which we are also expected to take care of, which makes it an even graver offense.
That therefore, is my point of view regarding suicide.
Tilberian,
Hey, I'm going to move our conversation to the philosophy category. Look for me there!
CHeers!
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
From a Christian standpoint, murder is the taking of any human life (except in cases of accidents). Any human life, includes your own. The bible says thou shall not kill. Jesus said that no murderer will ever enter the kingdom of Heaven.
But....
If god has a 'plan', you would not be able to succeed unless it was part of the plan, right?
You would not be able to kill anyone, even yourself, unless it was all part of the 'plan'. God knows all that will happen.... and has known it since before the beginning.... according to scripture. Correct?
...that does not repent for their sins. All is forgiven by God through Jesus and even the murderer can enter heaven. Either way it's between that person and God.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Link to the thread, please?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Ahh...dude...c'mon! It's the only thread in the philosophy category that I've created and it says in the title: moved from suicide discussion! hehe...
I'm sorry. I'm a bum. Here ya go:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/7831
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
And yet we do not know what that person's motives were nor do we know if they were sorry for what they are going to do or are doing. My point is still the same - you cannot call them guilty in the eyes of God for only God can condemn. All you can say about the person is their action was incorrect. If any person (believer or not) was sincere about not doing something wrong, sin would not exist. Because God knows we will fall to all manor of sins, our sins can be forgiven us by God through the belief in Jesus....and that means even murderers. This is why God tells us not to be judgmental for we are not the one's who condemn. This is why we cannot say someone who committed suicide is in hell for that is us judging that person.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Do you understand that this is self contradictory? These two statements are negate each other. If he knows all that will happen, that means actions and events are predetermined. If we have free will he cannot possible know what will take place because the decision has not been made yet.
Dammit! You were reading my "Theist Rebuttal Journal" weren't you. Stay out of my room!
Actually no, that is not what I was going to say. I can see you are not omnipotent.
So he allows us to exist, to commit the crime to then be punished? How is that a 'judge'? That is a mean kid with a magnifying glass and we are the ants.
As far as a judge not sentencing someone before they commit the crime, that is not true. Judges consistantly sentence persons plotting crimes, by allowing us to exist he is just letting the planning begin.
You don't get it. Your state of being after death is 100% irrelevant excepting one factor: 0 pain, the reason for desire to end in the first place. It has nothing to do with longing and everything to do with a rational choice: The end of pain. Until you can demonstrate in any capacity that pain continues after death, your position that the choice to take it being irrational is irrational in and of itself.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
This is not contrdictory. The actions are not predetermined by God. You still chose the action. God simply knows the actions your going to choose. God is never forcing you to choose any action, its still your choice.
If you plan to murder someone, the judge doesn't sentence you for murder. In fact he sentences you for planning to commit murder. Saying your going to kill someone is not the same as actually killing them. Also you must still exist in order to plan a sin.
If he knows what you will choose, then there really never was a 'choice'.
Can you really justify this circular reasoning to yourself?
Again, can you really overlook how circular this reasoning is? It does not make sense, to allow something to exist knowing full well what will happen in the future just so you can say, "ha ha, I let you exist so I could punish you later for what I knew you would do before I created you".
Is that really a doctrine you want to follow and a diety you want to worship? Even if this god of yours existed I would want no part in worshipping or pleasing such a being.
Someone knowing the future has no control over your choices. How can this be circular? Some "distant" "person" knowing something has no affect on you. Only if the person chose to share the information or act on the information would it affect you at all.
Are you calling god a "distant persdon"?
If the future can be known then free will is negated, instead everything is predetermined and free will is just an illusion.
Look up determinism.
Wiki article
"The nature of determinism
The exact meaning of the term determinism has historically been subject to several interpretations. Some, called Incompatibilists view determinism and free will as mutually exclusive. That believing in determinism requires one to believe free will to be an illusion, is the position known as Hard Determinism. Others, labeled Compatibilists, (or Soft Determinists) believe that the two ideas can be coherently reconciled. (Incompatibilists who accept free will but reject determinism are called Libertarians — not to be confused with the political sense.) Most of this disagreement is due to the fact that the definition of free will, like that of determinism, varies. Some feel it refers to the metaphysical truth of independent agency, whereas others simply define it as the feeling of agency that humans experience when they act. For example, David Hume argued that while it is possible that one does not freely arrive at one's set of desires and beliefs, the only meaningful interpretation of freedom relates to one's ability to translate those desires and beliefs into voluntary action."
I'm not saying God is distant. It doesn't matter either way. Somone knowing something does nothing to determine what choices you make. Whatever you choose will be what God knows. Whatever choice you make, God already knows that you was going to make that choice. You still thought about what you were going to do and you still made the choice. God did not influence your decision or force you to make that choice. You did it all on your own.
I'm sure we both agree we have free will, so How does God knowing something change what you do?
Someone/something know the FUTURE negates freewill.
Again... I am not trying to be a dick but you need to look into the problems of omnipotence and freewill. They are in fact contradictory and no amount of circular reasoning will fix that. It is one of the strongest arguments against the christian god.
To know the future, contradicts freewill and only gives the illusion of choice. If an omipotent being knows what you are having for dinner tomorrow before you have decided what to eat, then you really are not making the decision, it has been predetermined.
In the case of the original posters topic, if an all knowing diety knows before you are born you are going to sin and commit suicide then before your birth these events have been predetermined. Therefore you only think you have freewill/choice.
If someone really was psychic, lets say Slyvia Brown. And she knows that you are going to get a job at a bakery. You've never met her. So how does she knowing your going to get a job at a bakery influence your descision to actually apply and take the job at the bakery?
Explain how me knowing something can make you do something if we've never met.
It is not her knowing that influences the decision.
Omniscience = It is that the events are actually PRE - DETERMINED, therefore the future can be known.
Pre - Determinism = Illusion of free will because events are already set to happen in a certain way.
Omniscience & Freewill are mutually exclusive, one contradicts the other.
Either you have free will and god does not exist or is not omniscient.
Or, god exists and is omniscient therefore, no free will.
predeterminism
Here's the nice easy definition/explanation. It gets a lot more complicated, if you get into it.
Predeterminism is the idea that every event has a cause which is necessitated to be that cause (and to happen at that time), because some operating principle required it to happen. (It's like determinism, but with an overarching guiding principle).
But Why?
All kinds of crazy reasons. Here's one of the simpler ones.
1. God is omniscient.
2. Therefore, God knows, and has always known, when you will die.
3. Therefore, The time that you are going to die has been fixed for as long as God has been omniscient.
4. This can be generalized to any event (i.e. God knows, and has always known, X).
Fun huh? Both determinists and predeterminists usually believe that given enough information a person could predict the future with supreme certitude. The difference is subtle, but generally speaking determinism is limited to the idea that every event follows causal laws. Predeterminism adds some other factor, one that is, in some sense, omniscient and/or overarching, setting down not only the rules, but also the form those rules must take. (Predeterminism gives you the rule book and stacks the deck, so to speak).
Another way of looking at it is that determinism is a chain of causal statements; 'a happens, which causes b, which causes c, etc.' While c has been determined to happen ever since a came about, if for some reason a or b did not happen, then c wouldn't be caused, and so wouldn't happen. With predeterminism, 'a will happen, and b will happen (etc.)', but the cause is God (or something else of that sort). If a doesn't happen, that doesn't really have any bearing on weather or not b happens; we have the same reasons for believing b will happen, weather or not a comes about.
If you like this, you could go even further, in to fatalism.
The popular usage of the term 'predeterminism' seems to be just any form of the idea that the future is already set.
You might want to browse through these:
Determinism, Fatalism.
Free Will, Libertarianism.
Compatibilism, Soft determinism.
Indeterminism (beware, this word has multiple meanings).
I think I need to add in two things...first this is a rehash of an old thread.
Second, in relation to what is written from the bible in a Christians point of view, there are two different forms of "free will" that are being crossed and that is the spirit vs. flesh. What you are given authority from God and what you have no power to "adjust". There is no free will of the spirit but there is free will over your bodies and what you do with them while alive.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
From Websters Dictionary Omniscient - having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight. Has nothing to do with events being predetermined. I recommend you get a dictionary.
And I suggest you look up the problem with freewill and omniscience, which I am sure you still have not, rather you are more inclined to debate whether Peter was the first pope. If that type of argument holds your faith together in light of all the numerous other contradictions, then by all means, keep debating who first started the money machine called the catholic church.
Surely you could spend your time learning something instead of just making naked assertations for which you have presented no substance.
Also, I am not sure about the definition you posted:
Definitions of omniscience on the Web:
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_l-o.htm
www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-evi.htm
www.cwru.edu/artsci/engl/marling/hardboiled/Glossary.HTM
www.mises.org/easier/O.asp
www.religioustolerance.org/gl_o.htm
www.iolani.org/usacad_eng_eng10ssterms_cw9404.htm
miriams-well.org/Glossary/
www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm
www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
Even christian sources define it is as knowing everything, past, present and future.
In what sense can you make a choice if Sylvia Brown already knows the outcome? If you make the choice she didn't predict, then she really never knew the outcome, did she? It's even worse with God. If you did something that God didn't predict, God would have been wrong. Which is impossible, for God.
Now you could say that Sylvia Brown is such a genuis that she can see all inputs and calculate all variables and make perfect predictions this way without having actually forced anything to be one way or the other. (All that shows is that the universe is deterministic, BTW, and that free will still can't exist) But even that weak-ass kind of free will doesn't work with God. God CREATED all the variables, inputs and outputs, as well as all the rules they operate by, with perfect knowledge of what was going to happen to it all, right? So God is PERFECTLY RESPONSIBLE for every single thing that happens in his creation.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown